Probes on the surface of the brain would be less invasive than probes that have to go into the brain tissue. "Less invasive" could also mean that less skull bone has to be cut/removed in order to carry out the procedure and/or to continue using the device.
They're not "banned", that makes us sound so draconian. It's just guideline, advice, to anyone who likes their freedom and who likes their hands being attached to the ends of their arms, not to try and buy or sell them... in a friendly kind of a way.
yeah and even the people who did used languages that were already invented and copied many ideas from cpm and ran it on processors made by a company who didn't even invent silicon but used molecules that came from a star that wasn't even a first generation star but was made from recycled material from several generations of stars, but even all of THAT doesn't seem quite as old as this "wasn't invented there" slashdot mantra. Yes it wasn't Microsoft that wrote the code, because Microsoft is a business entity. Software is written by people. Can we all get over that yet?
Multiprocess is great if one of them crashes, but in other cases (browser crashes I find to be pretty rare) I don't think it makes much difference; threads still get scheduled to run in basically the same way on the processor, memory can be made private or shared between threads and processes just the same, so it's really not/that/ much of a big deal.
Menubar - yeah perhaps you don't, the way I use it, esp for development stuff, the extra features are most important, and menubar provides a consistent interface to features that speeds up interaction with it.
And memory - I've many test cases where Chrome's memory usage is higher than Safari's, but mostly yeah Safari's is higher, often only by 10% or so, but... it's more featureful, so this is really no surprise.
Default installs of Chrome and Safari4 are close to indistinguishable! But I've ended up stickin with Safari4; is fast like Chrome, but has the features of IE8 (javascript profiling very important app development, but obviously not so important if you're just a surfer and don't develop js stuff)... oh, and you get option to turn on menubar. (I've not tried chrome 2 yet tho)
"Does the Microsoft one include the tab bar in the window title?"
Err... the Windows Chrome does, if that's what you meant. As does Safari4 (difference being that Saf4 divides the titlebar up evenly between tabs, and Chrome has fixed width tabs)
A?! Incorrect use of the indefinite article there me thinks. There're more 'standards' than you can shake ya stick at. But anyway I think you're giving 'standards' too much credit, fact is that whatever browser you use, you're gonna find holes where they've not fully supported all the standard, which means you still have to know the browsers you're targetting.
"A browser is not a platform"
It SO is, the ease of rolling out software to people by using the browser as a platform is a complete paradigm shift, it's enabling technology, and I'm most glad that I'm not limited to the 'standard' in using it, and whenever I've shown people what I can do with it, what I can enable them to do with it, they go "wow. Work for us.". No one's ever asked for more time to think about it. Experts and computer idiots alike use it every day, and can do anywhere they go, on any machine, without admin rights on the machine or anything, because IE is a completely good enough front end platform by itself. It wouldn't be if it was cripled by sticking to the 'standards'.
"I can't reproduce your border error.""You really should not be attaching events that way"
Again, subjective, I may not want or need more events attached, or just have one handler function that I use dynamically to register certain conditions with. It can be easier to have a specifically coded event marshalling function that you give instructions to, than code multiple functions that you attach in series to the event. Depends on what you're developing. In the case where I do want to just attach a single function to an event, this is a very quick and clean way of doing so.
"It is really pretty rare that you should have to pass variables that way"
No. In one project I have many functions that do things like handle object selection/deselection/deletion etc. Many of the deep level functions act differently depending on what control keys (shift etc) are being held at the time. In order to find that out, in IE, I can just access window.event. Without that, I have to be passing around the event object everywhere just in case a deeper level function needs it. Or of course, all the event triggered functions could have code that globalifies (heh) the event object, but that's then just using code to simulate the window.event thing that IE gives me all by itself.
"It is not subjective. There is a standard. While no browser implements it fully, IE is (still) the worst"
You're wrong, it IS subjective, as to what in your opinion is most important; standards compliant, or does the job you want.
(thanks for the rational debate tho, it's rare to be able to get one on here without being hit back with pure ad hominems, so, respect)
I never have problems with it... sure there was some stagnation issues with there being such a large gap between IE6 and 7 that meant you had to drop in a bit of extra code to support transparent pngs etc, but I much prefer coding under IE to firefox. I had a page the other week, iframe in the middle with a 1 pixel black solid css border around it... IE, Safari, Chrome, Opera, all rendered the black rectangle correctly, Firefox (3.0 and 3.1 beta) was only drawing three sides of it... and that's just a black rectangle. I much prefer the way IE exports the window.event object making it much more readily available than firefox, being able to say body.onkeypress=functionname; and then being able to access window.event from within the function is way cleaner than having to attach the event in a way that lets you specify passing variables. The setCapture() and releaseCapture() functions make window manager type stuff, or any other kind of dragging where there may be iframes on the page a billion times easier. Iframes... very useful, where did they come from again? Oh yeah, IE. Extra HTML tag properties exported as DOM properties rather than having to use getAttribute and setAttribute I also find preferable. Chrome and Safari4 are also much nicer to code for than Firefox, but they're pretty new. They do however show that it IS possible for other browsers to support features that MS have invented, features that (many of them) actually make things better. How hard would it be to export window.event? I bet it would be a piece of piss, but FF developers haven't, so who's fault is it that stuff doesn't work on it that does on IE?
Basically, whatever platform you're used to programming for, be it mozilla or ie, the other one IS going to seem alien to you, and stuff is frustratingly not gonna work on it. To me, IE, Safari4 and Chrome are a bliss, and I wish firefox would just die. In the latest generation of browsers, it's SO far behind the curve, it's a real pain to support. Thankfully, doing mostly webapp stuff at the moment, I can just get my clients to use any other browser but FF.
But for you, the one you hate is IE rather than FF, which can only lead to the conclusion that IT'S SUBJECTIVE! So quit with the 'better' or 'worse' thing like there's any kind of authority on the issue. All browsers put stuff in that doesn't work on the others, and so lock in is possible on all browsers. So many of the missing features from FF are available in Safari4 and Chrome; they run a lot of my webapps that previously was IE only, I was most glad to see. Proof that it is possible. It's just whinging from the Mozilla corner instead of coding.
Unrelated?! There's bits about TWO front page slashdot stories in there, as opposed to the other posts which relate just to the ONE? That makes my post *doubly* related.
How is that more accurate? I've never known anyone who couldn't use another browser in *any* version of Windows. My Mom ran Netscape on Win95 and 98, she runs Firefox on 2000, my dad runs Opera on XP and 2003, and the kids (my young siblings) I noticed recently running Google's Chrome on XP and Vista. Quit letting your opinion be swayed by your bitterness over the fact that a browser from a company you don't like is widely used. If you really have trouble using a non-IE browser, that reflects only on your own abilities.
"What about injecting human brain cells into mice?"
No that would just be silly. Firstly, keeping brain cells alive long enough to put them into a mouse is gonna be difficult, secondly, the mouse's immune system's gonna just reject and kill the cells as soon as they are put into the mouse, and thirdly, even if you got the cells into the mouse they wouldn't do anything because they wouldn't be connecting into the mouse's neural network. The genetic approach is probably gonna remain much more effective.
This is just the beginning. They started off with a cut down version of the gene (due to patent restrictions on the method used in working with the full gene) that only allows the mice to squeek in the lower tone, do the high pitch whistle, and make one other noise, such as checking its email. The three squeek limit will be a limitation until the Mice Generation 7, when they'll be able to have as many squeeks as they like, but the amount of memory they can use will be limited. This is of course until the EU gets their hands into them, and they will be born without an ability to browse.
"Photovolatic systems are unproven, but on a serious scale would probably involve enormous quantities of highly toxic chemicals"
Photovoltaic isn't the only option for solar power though. This article about a plant in Spain that uses mirrors to collect light, heats water, which drives a standard turbine. This is basically last century's technology, very easy to do (relatively speaking of course), yet genius all the same.
If it was a top level post then yes, but as a reply to a post it has to be taken in the context of that post. If the story says one thing, but then a person posts a message suggesting something else, it's fair to point this out and get feedback to clarify. Now, this can be done with a statement like "don't be so stupid, RTFS!!! *woosh*" or whatever standard slashdot mantra seems to be prefered, or it can be done in less a coarse manner in question form.
I'm sorry you can't recognise which is the more social behavior. Yes yes, I must be new here.
This is so not a troll! Can someone really not just read what a poster says without being so blinded by being an emotional reactionary that the message has no hope of getting through? Maybe I'll get a flamebait for this but the marking of this post as troll is a blatant act of idiocy, is completely unfair, and should be fixed.
Am not saying mod up, but definitely cancel out the down mod. Anyone?
Still, you can't complain too loudly about people not doing the things you think they should be doing if you won't even try doing them yourself. If someone puts themself in a position where they can be part of a decision making progress, but you won't even try to, you have to accept that the decisions are going to be made closer to what they want than what you want. If you try and fail then of course that's slightly different, but if you won't try, you can't be shocked when things go the way of those that will.
Slashdot Mirror
Probes on the surface of the brain would be less invasive than probes that have to go into the brain tissue. "Less invasive" could also mean that less skull bone has to be cut/removed in order to carry out the procedure and/or to continue using the device.
They're not "banned", that makes us sound so draconian. It's just guideline, advice, to anyone who likes their freedom and who likes their hands being attached to the ends of their arms, not to try and buy or sell them... in a friendly kind of a way.
yeah and even the people who did used languages that were already invented and copied many ideas from cpm and ran it on processors made by a company who didn't even invent silicon but used molecules that came from a star that wasn't even a first generation star but was made from recycled material from several generations of stars, but even all of THAT doesn't seem quite as old as this "wasn't invented there" slashdot mantra. Yes it wasn't Microsoft that wrote the code, because Microsoft is a business entity. Software is written by people. Can we all get over that yet?
Multiprocess is great if one of them crashes, but in other cases (browser crashes I find to be pretty rare) I don't think it makes much difference; threads still get scheduled to run in basically the same way on the processor, memory can be made private or shared between threads and processes just the same, so it's really not /that/ much of a big deal.
Menubar - yeah perhaps you don't, the way I use it, esp for development stuff, the extra features are most important, and menubar provides a consistent interface to features that speeds up interaction with it.
And memory - I've many test cases where Chrome's memory usage is higher than Safari's, but mostly yeah Safari's is higher, often only by 10% or so, but... it's more featureful, so this is really no surprise.
"No two browsers look alike"
Default installs of Chrome and Safari4 are close to indistinguishable! But I've ended up stickin with Safari4; is fast like Chrome, but has the features of IE8 (javascript profiling very important app development, but obviously not so important if you're just a surfer and don't develop js stuff)... oh, and you get option to turn on menubar. (I've not tried chrome 2 yet tho)
"Does the Microsoft one include the tab bar in the window title?"
Err... the Windows Chrome does, if that's what you meant. As does Safari4 (difference being that Saf4 divides the titlebar up evenly between tabs, and Chrome has fixed width tabs)
Can you please submit the patch upstream so we don't all have to fix it ourselves on our own copies. Thanks.
"There is a standard"
A?! Incorrect use of the indefinite article there me thinks. There're more 'standards' than you can shake ya stick at. But anyway I think you're giving 'standards' too much credit, fact is that whatever browser you use, you're gonna find holes where they've not fully supported all the standard, which means you still have to know the browsers you're targetting.
"A browser is not a platform"
It SO is, the ease of rolling out software to people by using the browser as a platform is a complete paradigm shift, it's enabling technology, and I'm most glad that I'm not limited to the 'standard' in using it, and whenever I've shown people what I can do with it, what I can enable them to do with it, they go "wow. Work for us.". No one's ever asked for more time to think about it. Experts and computer idiots alike use it every day, and can do anywhere they go, on any machine, without admin rights on the machine or anything, because IE is a completely good enough front end platform by itself. It wouldn't be if it was cripled by sticking to the 'standards'.
"I can't reproduce your border error.""You really should not be attaching events that way"
Again, subjective, I may not want or need more events attached, or just have one handler function that I use dynamically to register certain conditions with. It can be easier to have a specifically coded event marshalling function that you give instructions to, than code multiple functions that you attach in series to the event. Depends on what you're developing. In the case where I do want to just attach a single function to an event, this is a very quick and clean way of doing so.
"It is really pretty rare that you should have to pass variables that way"
No. In one project I have many functions that do things like handle object selection/deselection/deletion etc. Many of the deep level functions act differently depending on what control keys (shift etc) are being held at the time. In order to find that out, in IE, I can just access window.event. Without that, I have to be passing around the event object everywhere just in case a deeper level function needs it. Or of course, all the event triggered functions could have code that globalifies (heh) the event object, but that's then just using code to simulate the window.event thing that IE gives me all by itself.
"It is not subjective. There is a standard. While no browser implements it fully, IE is (still) the worst"
You're wrong, it IS subjective, as to what in your opinion is most important; standards compliant, or does the job you want.
(thanks for the rational debate tho, it's rare to be able to get one on here without being hit back with pure ad hominems, so, respect)
"It is a frustrating fucking nightmare"
I never have problems with it... sure there was some stagnation issues with there being such a large gap between IE6 and 7 that meant you had to drop in a bit of extra code to support transparent pngs etc, but I much prefer coding under IE to firefox. I had a page the other week, iframe in the middle with a 1 pixel black solid css border around it... IE, Safari, Chrome, Opera, all rendered the black rectangle correctly, Firefox (3.0 and 3.1 beta) was only drawing three sides of it... and that's just a black rectangle. I much prefer the way IE exports the window.event object making it much more readily available than firefox, being able to say
body.onkeypress=functionname; and then being able to access window.event from within the function is way cleaner than having to attach the event in a way that lets you specify passing variables. The setCapture() and releaseCapture() functions make window manager type stuff, or any other kind of dragging where there may be iframes on the page a billion times easier. Iframes... very useful, where did they come from again? Oh yeah, IE. Extra HTML tag properties exported as DOM properties rather than having to use getAttribute and setAttribute I also find preferable. Chrome and Safari4 are also much nicer to code for than Firefox, but they're pretty new. They do however show that it IS possible for other browsers to support features that MS have invented, features that (many of them) actually make things better. How hard would it be to export window.event? I bet it would be a piece of piss, but FF developers haven't, so who's fault is it that stuff doesn't work on it that does on IE?
Basically, whatever platform you're used to programming for, be it mozilla or ie, the other one IS going to seem alien to you, and stuff is frustratingly not gonna work on it. To me, IE, Safari4 and Chrome are a bliss, and I wish firefox would just die. In the latest generation of browsers, it's SO far behind the curve, it's a real pain to support. Thankfully, doing mostly webapp stuff at the moment, I can just get my clients to use any other browser but FF.
But for you, the one you hate is IE rather than FF, which can only lead to the conclusion that IT'S SUBJECTIVE! So quit with the 'better' or 'worse' thing like there's any kind of authority on the issue. All browsers put stuff in that doesn't work on the others, and so lock in is possible on all browsers. So many of the missing features from FF are available in Safari4 and Chrome; they run a lot of my webapps that previously was IE only, I was most glad to see. Proof that it is possible. It's just whinging from the Mozilla corner instead of coding.
Unrelated?! There's bits about TWO front page slashdot stories in there, as opposed to the other posts which relate just to the ONE? That makes my post *doubly* related.
I'm sure that's how it works. Isn't it? :-p
How is that more accurate? I've never known anyone who couldn't use another browser in *any* version of Windows. My Mom ran Netscape on Win95 and 98, she runs Firefox on 2000, my dad runs Opera on XP and 2003, and the kids (my young siblings) I noticed recently running Google's Chrome on XP and Vista. Quit letting your opinion be swayed by your bitterness over the fact that a browser from a company you don't like is widely used. If you really have trouble using a non-IE browser, that reflects only on your own abilities.
Great, next you're gonna tell 'im that actually MIT have created monsters to go under the bed. Sheesh!
The feeling of betrayal releases hormones into the blood that makes a steak taste just great
"What about injecting human brain cells into mice?"
No that would just be silly. Firstly, keeping brain cells alive long enough to put them into a mouse is gonna be difficult, secondly, the mouse's immune system's gonna just reject and kill the cells as soon as they are put into the mouse, and thirdly, even if you got the cells into the mouse they wouldn't do anything because they wouldn't be connecting into the mouse's neural network. The genetic approach is probably gonna remain much more effective.
This is just the beginning. They started off with a cut down version of the gene (due to patent restrictions on the method used in working with the full gene) that only allows the mice to squeek in the lower tone, do the high pitch whistle, and make one other noise, such as checking its email. The three squeek limit will be a limitation until the Mice Generation 7, when they'll be able to have as many squeeks as they like, but the amount of memory they can use will be limited. This is of course until the EU gets their hands into them, and they will be born without an ability to browse.
NOTE TO ALL OWNERS OF A 3 YEAR OLD: This is a joke, please do NOT try plugging things into your child!
*phew* saved 'em
That's the same with whatever's powering the turbine though. Using solar heated water rather than coal or oil etc makes for much cleaner energy.
"Photovolatic systems are unproven, but on a serious scale would probably involve enormous quantities of highly toxic chemicals"
Photovoltaic isn't the only option for solar power though. This article about a plant in Spain that uses mirrors to collect light, heats water, which drives a standard turbine. This is basically last century's technology, very easy to do (relatively speaking of course), yet genius all the same.
That was a good prog... shockingly mentioning that we spend more per year on mobile ringtones than we do on fusion research.
Easy. All you need are mirrors
If it was a top level post then yes, but as a reply to a post it has to be taken in the context of that post. If the story says one thing, but then a person posts a message suggesting something else, it's fair to point this out and get feedback to clarify. Now, this can be done with a statement like "don't be so stupid, RTFS!!! *woosh*" or whatever standard slashdot mantra seems to be prefered, or it can be done in less a coarse manner in question form.
I'm sorry you can't recognise which is the more social behavior. Yes yes, I must be new here.
This is so not a troll! Can someone really not just read what a poster says without being so blinded by being an emotional reactionary that the message has no hope of getting through? Maybe I'll get a flamebait for this but the marking of this post as troll is a blatant act of idiocy, is completely unfair, and should be fixed.
Am not saying mod up, but definitely cancel out the down mod. Anyone?
Still, you can't complain too loudly about people not doing the things you think they should be doing if you won't even try doing them yourself. If someone puts themself in a position where they can be part of a decision making progress, but you won't even try to, you have to accept that the decisions are going to be made closer to what they want than what you want. If you try and fail then of course that's slightly different, but if you won't try, you can't be shocked when things go the way of those that will.
*lol* thanks :-)
"Ah, but I do understand the human mind"
Try telling that to the last paragraph of your previous post.